Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council dealt with discounts on his council tax account. There was no fault in how the Council applied discounts to Mr X’s council tax account or how it communicated with him. The Council did resume some recovery action before it should have done. The Council apologised to Mr X and that was a suitable remedy.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not apply council tax reduction (“CTR”) or single person discounts (“SPD”) to his council tax bill. He says when he called the Council to speak about this, staff were rude and unhelpful. He also says the Council refused to place a hold on enforcement action when he asked for time to help address his financial difficulties.
2. As a result, Mr X said the Council expected him to pay more than he should and caused him avoidable frustration and inconvenience. He wants the Council to reduce his bill to what it should be and properly recognise the impact on him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
6. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
7. The Valuation Tribunal deals with appeals against decisions on council tax liability and council tax support or reduction.
8. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered:
• the information Mr X provided in his complaint
• the Council’s comments on the complaint and the supporting information it provided; and
• relevant law.
10. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments I received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Council tax discounts

11. A single person living alone in a property is entitled to a 25 percent discount on their council tax bill. This is commonly referred to as a ‘single person discount’, or ‘SPD’.
12. Council tax law gives no limit on how far a discount for council tax can be backdated.

Council tax reduction

13. Someone on a low income may be entitled to council tax reduction (CTR, also known as council tax support). This is a discount off someone’s council tax bill.
14. All councils must have a CTR scheme which sets out, among other things: who is entitled to a discount, how CTR is calculated and what someone needs to do to apply. Appeals about CTR decisions are to the Valuation Tribunal.

What happened

15. Mr X moved into his home in May 2021.
16. The following month, the Council sent Mr X a council tax bill for the remainder of the 2021-22 tax year. The Council sent Mr X a reminder notice in August 2021.
17. In mid-September 2021 the Council’s benefits team emailed Mr X asking if he lived alone at his home. The following week the Council wrote to Mr X asking for the same information.
18. In early October 2021, the Council sent Mr X a single person discount application form to his home address. Around a week later the Council sent Mr X another copy of the application form and also wrote to Mr X telling him he could apply for council tax reduction. Both these letters were addressed to Mr X at his home address.
19. In late October 2021 the Council issued a summons for outstanding council tax. This was sent to Mr X’s home address.
20. The Council sent Mr X a council tax bill for the 2022-23 tax year in March 2023. It also re-sent a copy of the SPD application form to what the Council believed to be an alternative address for Mr X in March 2023. That form was returned as undeliverable in June 2022.
21. The Council sent another copy of the SPD application form to Mr X’s home address in July 2022 and issued an amended council tax bill following a government energy cost rebate in August 2022.
22. The Council issued an updated bill in September 2022, followed by another reminder in October 2022.
23. In early November 2022, Mr X complained to the Council that it had not applied a single person discount to his account and that, as a result, it was charging him more than it should. The Council sent another SPD application form but, again, sent this to the alternative address the Council had for Mr X, rather than to his home address.
24. Around two weeks later, the Council replied to Mr X’s complaint. In its response the Council said:
• it had sent Mr X several SPD application forms but had not received a completed form from Mr X. It attached a copy of the application form its email to Mr X;
• it had listened to recent phone calls between Mr X and the Council but found nothing inappropriate with how staff had spoken to Mr X; and
• asked Mr X to elaborate on earlier issues said he had with the Council’s council tax team.
25. The Council placed a one-month hold on Mr X’s council tax account, to mid-December 2022, to allow Mr X to complete the SPD application and provide supporting information for his CTR claim.
26. Mr X asked the Council to review its response to his complaint, which it did in early December 2022. The Council did not change its decision that the reason no discounts had been applied were because Mr X had not returned the application forms or provided the extra supporting information the Council needed for his CTR application. It apologised to Mr X for sending some of the forms to an incorrect address.
27. In early January 2023 Mr X returned the completed SPD application form to the Council and, at the same time, complained to the Ombudsman about what had happened.
28. The Council applied the single person discount to Mr X’s account from when he moved in and issued a revised (reduced) Council tax bill. The Council also withdrew any court summons and later took back Mr X’s account from its enforcement agents. The Council apologised to Mr X that his account was resent to its enforcement agents after the Council placed a hold on the account and it removed any enforcement fees charged.
29. After Mr X provided the necessary supporting evidence the Council also applied CTR to Mr X’s account, further reducing the balance.

My findings

30. The evidence shows the Council did send some SPD application forms to an incorrect address. However, the Council sent the SPD form to Mr X’s correct address in both October 2021 and July 2022. Mr X said he did not receive some of these forms but also told the Council at one point that he had returned the application forms. In either case, the Council says it did not receive a completed SPD application from Mr X until January 2023.
31. I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the Council sent the forms to Mr X in October 2021 and July 2022. I cannot hold the Council responsible for non-delivery if it correctly sent the forms. I have seen no evidence to show Mr X returned these forms if he received them. Therefore, I am not satisfied there is evidence of fault with how the Council dealt with Mr X’s application for a single person discount.
32. In any case, the Council backdated Mr X’s single person discount back to when he first moved into the property when it received his application in early 2023. So, Mr X now has the correct discount.
33. I have listened to several recordings of phone calls between Mr X and the Council from November 2022 and January 2023. My view is there is no evidence that Council staff were rude to Mr X or spoke to him inappropriately.
34. The Council wrote to Mr X asking for further information about his circumstances to award him CTR in October 2021. I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr X did not send the required information until after his complaint to the Ombudsman. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council responded to Mr X’s application for CTR. If Mr X believes the Council has not awarded him the correct amount of CTR, it would have been reasonable for him to have appealed this decision to the Valuation Tribunal.
35. The Council placed the hold on Mr X’s council tax account as it agreed to do in November 2022. There is no evidence Mr X provided the information he needed to during that time and therefore there was no fault with how the Council continued recovery action after this. The Council accepted there was an error by its enforcement agents which caused some recovery action to resume before it should have done. It apologised to Mr X for that error and I am satisfied this apology was a suitable remedy for the distress that caused.

Back to top

Final decision

36. I have completed my investigation. There was no fault in how the Council applied discounts to Mr X’s council tax account or how it communicated with him. The Council did resume some recovery action before it should have done. The Council apologised to Mr X and that was a suitable remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman